Is this a quantifiable problem? In the games I have played, I have noticed that they frequently have trouble, but I usually attributed this to an aggressive neighbor. In older games I do recall them being able to rise to the top of the food chain.

Sophons39 wrote:
Is this a quantifiable problem? In the games I have played, I have noticed that they frequently have trouble, but I usually attributed this to an aggressive neighbor. In older games I do recall them being able to rise to the top of the food chain.

Usually they are so handicapped by lack of colonization and aggressive neighbors they just fail to win 10/10 times. They need something that they can use to establish themselves with. To give them an equal chance at winning.



Here is what Amplitude should do: Run 100 AI only games with ALL empires in the game (which they can do) and take note of all the scores, and winners. Average the results, and boom: You have the OP and UP factions of the game right in front of you. Heck, If I was a modder, I would do it right now.

Yeah with a pre definied galaxy map and with the randomness which is such strong factor negated this could work.

Sovereign wrote:
Yeah with a pre definied galaxy map and with the randomness which is such strong factor negated this could work.

Another bad thing about this game (yes, they are few) is that the galaxy settings have such a huge impact on who will win the game. The Hissho (AI) tend to do better the smaller the galaxy is, so they can go to war earlier. The Horatio, on the other hand, are formidable when they have enough time to form their empire and get their economy going.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Usually they are so handicapped by lack of colonization and aggressive neighbors they just fail to win 10/10 times. They need something that they can use to establish themselves with. To give them an equal chance at winning.



Here is what Amplitude should do: Run 100 AI only games with ALL empires in the game (which they can do) and take note of all the scores, and winners. Average the results, and boom: You have the OP and UP factions of the game right in front of you. Heck, If I was a modder, I would do it right now.

The problem with that is simply, that it also depends on how well the AI works, not only on how well the mechanic works. So if a human player knows an exploit or a mechanic the AI does not, this is not included in such balancing. Also I'd actually run 10 games for every free variable, at least. Since you have 8 random slots of AIs, range, planets, planet classes of all surrounding systems and distance to next other player, distance to next wormhole to take into account, you'd need much more than a 100 games to really judge that, I reckon. On the other hand, you could try to evaluate the score-spread over all games and try to see if there's any underlying function, but that won't include strange situations in the tails, where someone almost always wins or loses.

Linking the distribution to other starting parameters, that's what you'd finally need to do to improve the balancing.

Just thinking to know "there's something strange" or "that AI loses more often" is only the very first step in solving such a problem, in my opinion.

Nosferatiel wrote:
The problem with that is simply, that it also depends on how well the AI works, not only on how well the mechanic works. So if a human player knows an exploit or a mechanic the AI does not, this is not included in such balancing. Also I'd actually run 10 games for every free variable, at least. Since you have 8 random slots of AIs, range, planets, planet classes of all surrounding systems and distance to next other player, distance to next wormhole to take into account, you'd need much more than a 100 games to really judge that, I reckon. On the other hand, you could try to evaluate the score-spread over all games and try to see if there's any underlying function, but that won't include strange situations in the tails, where someone almost always wins or loses.

Linking the distribution to other starting parameters, that's what you'd finally need to do to improve the balancing.

Just thinking to know "there's something strange" or "that AI loses more often" is only the very first step in solving such a problem, in my opinion.

True, players can exploit a given faction in ways that the AI can't. But at least if the games are run 100% AI then you can see which factions are OP.



But again, like you said, the experiment would be subject to change based on so many different variables, it would take weeks of testing.



Unless anyone here has a server farm and a load of time on their hands?

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
True, players can exploit a given faction in ways that the AI can't. But at least if the games are run 100% AI then you can see which factions are OP.



But again, like you said, the experiment would be subject to change based on so many different variables, it would take weeks of testing.



Unless anyone here has a server farm and a load of time on their hands?

*looks at the several hundreds of terabytes of data he has processed in the last two weeks* Sadly, it's not for my private use. XD

Nosferatiel wrote:
*looks at the several hundreds of terabytes of data he has processed in the last two weeks* Sadly, it's not for my private use. XD

Oh, how true.

If you really want balance you need to make custom fixed maps. Same starting positions with planet, constellation, syetem size and anomalies that benefit everyone equally. Even esports games like starcraft didnt work till mapmakers balanced it because blizzard maps heavely favored one race or another.



After you know exactly whats on your plate, then you start getting a feel for what traits and reserach are better for each map. But yes this will stagnate diversity to some extent. But as it stands diverse players just lose anyway.

Love the ideology of the Sowers but for now its way hard playing.

Since the goal of the Sowers is to colonize planets for the endless I think they should get much bigger bonuses for production, expansion disapproval should be smaller, and there should be approval bonuses for systems with over a certain amount of production.

Updated the Petition lol



EDIT: Looks like the Steph left a in her post. I must have missed that lol I guess whether or not she knows it, she's part of the petition lol

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Updated the Petition lol



EDIT: Looks like the Steph left a in her post. I must have missed that lol I guess whether or not she knows it, she's part of the petition lol

I never signed up for anything!!







/runs away.

Steph'nie wrote:
I never signed up for anything!!







/runs away.

Steph reaction time to her name = 13.2384 minutes.



Nice



P.S. She could just edit her name out of the post anyway, so...



The evidence:

Steph'nie wrote:
Dev Blog: Save the Sowers!

Used to my favorite faction. While I prefer UE now, I'd love these guys to be good again.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Steph reaction time to her name = 13.2384 minutes.



Nice



P.S. She could just edit her name out of the post anyway, so...



The evidence:

Well... you know that we could always edit the edits?

Anyways, it is not nice to try and blackmail a moderator.

You, sir, deserve to be pinked.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Well... you know that we could always edit the edits?

Anyways, it is not nice to try and blackmail a moderator.

You, sir, deserve to be pinked.

Good ol' nos. It was all in good fun



Oh, gosh. Anything but being pinked!!!

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Good ol' nos. It was all in good fun



Oh, gosh. Anything but being pinked!!!

You should pre-pink yourself so that you cannot be pinked.

You signed it! there is no way out of it! Your Soul is ours!



Remember the 17. Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition:



A contract is a contract is a contract.

Sovereign wrote:
You signed it! there is no way out of it! Your Soul is ours!



Remember the 17. Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition:



A contract is a contract is a contract.

How about I stuff a Quantum Torpedo down your nose, mr. Ferengi???